Vassar v. Artus
| Decision Date | 29 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | 9:08-CV-0041 (DNH) |
| Parties | MARVIN D. VASSAR, Petitioner, v. DALE ARTUS, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York |
PAUL B. LYONS, ESQ.
Ass't Attorney General
Petitioner Marvin D. Vassar ("Vassar" or "petitioner") filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, dated December 8, 2015. Dkt. No. 39 ("Am. Pet.").1 Petitioner challenges a 2005 judgment of conviction in Onondaga CountyCourt, of first degree rape, endangering the welfare of a child, and two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree.
In his amended petition, Vassar argues he is entitled to relief on the following grounds: he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel "failed to object" to "instances of prosecutorial misconduct" (Ground One); the indictment was defective because the prosecutor presented "prejudicial and inadmissible evidence before the Grand Jury" (Ground Two); the trial court failed to comply with the mandates of "C.P.L. § 270.40 and 310.20(2) in giving its instructions to the jury" (Ground Three); the prosecutor engaged in misconduct (Ground Four); "Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment are multiplicitous" (Ground Five); the evidence was legally insufficient and against the weight of the evidence (Ground Six); the trial court's "Allen charge was unbalanced and deprived" him of a fair trial (Ground Seven); the sentence was "unduly harsh and excessive" (Ground Eight); trial counsel was ineffective for opening "the door to prejudicial and inadmissible medical evidence" (Ground Nine); petitioner is actually innocent of the charged crimes (Ground Ten); and appellate counsel was ineffective (Ground Eleven). Am. Pet. at 6-28.2
Respondent opposes the petition. Dkt. No. 50, Answer; Dkt. No. 51, Public State Court Records ("P-SR"); Dkt. No. 52, Memorandum of Law Supporting Response to Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ( ); Dkt. No. 53-1 through 53-3, Sealed State CourtRecords ("SR"); Dkt. No. 53-4 through 53-6, Sealed Transcripts ("T").3
For the reasons that follow, the amended petition will be denied and dismissed.
An Onondaga County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Vassar with the crimes of Rape in the First Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.35(4)), two counts of Sexual Abuse in the Second Degree (N.Y. Penal Law § 130.60(2)), and Endangering the Welfare of a Child (N.Y. Penal Law § 260.10(1)). Dkt. No. 53-1, Indictment at SR 15-16.
These charges stem from Vassar's actions on February 25, 2004, when, while living with his then-girlfriend and her three children in Syracuse, New York, petitioner was accused of raping and assaulting his girlfriend's 11-year old daughter while they were home alone. Id.
A three-day jury trial was conducted in Onondaga County Court commencing on March 7, 2005. Vassar was found guilty of all charges in the indictment. On March 25, 2005, petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate determinate term of imprisonment of 25 years with 5 years of post-release supervision. Dkt. No. 53-6, at T 160-161, 172-173.
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment of conviction, and on July 25, 2006, the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. People v. Vassar, 30 A.D.3d 1051 (App. Div. 4th Dep't 2006), lv. denied, 7 N.Y.3d 796 (2006).
In June 2012, Vassar filed a pro se motion to vacate his judgment of conviction pursuant to C.P.L. § 440.10. In a decision and order dated March 4, 2013, the trial court denied petitioner's motion in its entirety. P-SR at 366-69. Petitioner's application to theAppellate Division for leave to appeal was denied on June 12, 2013. P-SR at 499-500.
In June 2013, Vassar filed a pro se motion in the Appellate Division for a writ of error coram nobis. The Appellate Division denied the motion, and on February 24, 2015, the Court of Appeals denied petitioner's application for leave to appeal. People v. Vassar, 120 A.D.3d 1610 (4th Dep't 2014), lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1221 (2015).
Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), a federal court may grant habeas corpus relief with respect to a claim adjudicated on the merits in state court only if, based upon the record before the state court, the state court's decision: (1) was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(d)(1), (2); Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011); Premo v. Moore, 562 U.S. 115, 120-21 (2011); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465, 473 (2007).
This standard is "highly deferential" and "demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt." Felkner v. Jackson, 562 U.S. 594, 598 (2011) (per curiam) (quoting Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that "a federal habeas court may overturn a state court's application of federal law only if it is so erroneous that 'there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with th[e Supreme] Court'sprecedents.'" Nevada v. Jackson, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1990, 1992 (2013) (per curiam) (quoting Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 102 (2011)); see Metrish v. Lancaster, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1781, 1787 (2013) () (quoting Richter, 562 U.S. at 103)).
Additionally, AEDPA foreclosed "'using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.'" Parker v. Matthews, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2148, 2149 (2012) (per curiam) (quoting Renico, 559 U.S. at 779). In other words, a state court's findings are not unreasonable under § 2254(d)(2) simply because a federal habeas court reviewing the claim in the first instance would have reached a different conclusion. Wood v. Allen, 558 U.S. 290, 301 (2010). "The question under AEDPA is not whether a federal court believes the state court's determination was incorrect but whether that determination was unreasonable - a substantially higher threshold." Schriro, 550 U.S. at 473.
Federal habeas courts must presume that the state courts' factual findings are correct unless a petitioner rebuts that presumption with '"clear and convincing evidence.'" Schriro, 550 U.S. at 473-74 (quoting § 2254(e)(1)). Finally, "[w]hen a state court rejects a federal claim without expressly addressing that claim, a federal habeas court must presume that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits[.]" Johnson v. Williams, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1088, 1096 (2013).
Regardless of the federal claims raised in a petition, a federal judge may not issue a writ of habeas corpus if the state court justifies the prisoner's detention on an independent and adequate state law ground. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). Thus, a federal court will "not review a question of federal law decided by a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment." Id. (citations omitted); see also Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 261-262 (1989). "This rule applies whether the state law ground is substantive or procedural." Id.
For example, if the state court "explicitly invokes a state procedural bar rule as a separate basis for decision," the federal court is precluded from considering the merits of the federal claims in a habeas petition. Harris, 489 U.S. 255, 264, n.10; see Fama v. Comm'r of Corr. Servs, 235 F.3d 804, 809 (2d Cir. 2000) ().
Moreover, if a state court declines to address a prisoner's federal claims because the prisoner failed to meet a state procedural requirement, but alternatively, or "in any event," rules the argument is without merit, the procedural bar still applies. Fama, 235 F.3d at 810, n.4. If there is ambiguity, however, such as "when a state court uses language such as '[t]he defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit,' the validity of the claim is preserved and is subject to federal review." Id.; see also Doe v. Perez, No. 9:13-CV-0921 (DNH/DEP), 2015 WL 7444342 at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2015), adopted 2015 WL 7432385 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2015).
A state prisoner who has procedurally defaulted on a federal claim in state court may only obtain federal habeas review "if the prisoner demonstrates cause for the default and prejudice from the asserted error," or that the failure to review the claim will result in a "miscarriage of justice," i.e., that he is actually innocent. House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518, 536-539 (2006); Maples v. Thomas, ___ U.S.___, 132 S.Ct. 912, 922 (2012); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 327 (1995).
To establish cause, a petitioner must show that some objective external factor impeded his ability to comply with the relevant procedural rule. Maples, 132 S.Ct. at 922 (citing Coleman, 501 U.S. at 753 (quoting Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986)). Prejudice exists if "there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial